“Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Ben C. Smith »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:27 amAnd you can say that 'born of a woman' means 'really human' in spite of what Paul goes on to say regarding the Jerusalem above as a woman. A heavenly woman that Revelation goes on to say gives birth to a son.
I am not talking about Paul, nor about Revelation. I will leave you to discuss those topics. I was responding to your comments about an ancient idiom. If I have provided perspective, then great. If not, then ignore it and enjoy the rest of your day.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by maryhelena »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:31 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:27 amAnd you can say that 'born of a woman' means 'really human' in spite of what Paul goes on to say regarding the Jerusalem above as a woman. A heavenly woman that Revelation goes on to say gives birth to a son.
I am not talking about Paul, nor about Revelation. I will leave you to discuss those topics. I was responding to your comments about an ancient idiom. If I have provided perspective, then great. If not, then ignore it and enjoy the rest of your day.
Indeed, no point in talking past one another....enjoy your day :cheers:
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by mlinssen »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:35 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:31 am
maryhelena wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:27 amAnd you can say that 'born of a woman' means 'really human' in spite of what Paul goes on to say regarding the Jerusalem above as a woman. A heavenly woman that Revelation goes on to say gives birth to a son.
I am not talking about Paul, nor about Revelation. I will leave you to discuss those topics. I was responding to your comments about an ancient idiom. If I have provided perspective, then great. If not, then ignore it and enjoy the rest of your day.
Indeed, no point in talking past one another....enjoy your day :cheers:
Paul is, once again, refuting Thomas here, or at least cloaking himself in Thomas. It is not very useful to refer to someone as being born of woman, is it?

Gospel of Thomas logion 15
say(s) IS : when you(PL) continue-to behold to he-who not they beget he outward in the(F) woman bend-self you(r)(PL) upon your(PL.) face or/and you(PL) worship to he he-who therein is(M) your(PL.) father

And the more legible translation, Layton:

(15) Jesus said, "When you (plur.) see one who has not been born of woman, fall upon your faces and prostrate yourselves before that one: it is that one who is your father."

So it is, naturally, interesting to direct attention to someone who is NOT born of woman - because that indeed is "interesting" to say the least
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by JoeWallack »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:46 pm Ian and Laura are friends, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, though we agree on quite a bit. (Ian and I are in pretty solid agreement on source critical issues. And, of course, there are lots of things the two of them disagree on, but their disagreements are not the point of their podcasts and videos). So I'll share my opinions here in case anyone is interested.

I agree on Galatians 4.4. I think when Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman” in all probability he means Jesus existed as a human being on earth as human beings tend to. This does not exclude the possibility that he was born of a woman outside the terrestrial sphere, but such a thesis needs to show evidence for that beyond what is in the text at that point (Ian and Laura's point about “bark” and “novelization”).

I don't agree with them on Gal. 1.19. I think there is a reasonably good argument to be made for the brothers of the Lord being a group of Christian leaders distinct from the apostles, but who are not Jesus' siblings. Also, I don't think the understanding that it means “male siblings of Jesus” is all that solid from either Pauline usage or the history of interpretation in the early church.

I agree partly, but disagree significantly on Mark 7.19 and environs. The point is that Mark adds the interpretive comment “Thus he declared all foods clean,” but Jesus' preceding sayings don't really establish that. I take this to mean Mark did not have complete freedom to make up whatever he wanted. There was some sort of prior tradition. The same would be true of Matthew and Luke – they can add, delete, alter, and in some cases even contradict Mark, but they are still constrained to some extent by what Mark had written before them. But to say that there was a tradition before Mark with which Mark had to deal is not to say that the sayings necessarily goes back to Jesus himself.

Best,

Ken
JW:
"I've got this friends..."

We've been through this before Ken. Their emphasis is on the absolute, the conclusion, and not on the relative, the evidence. Sure, they and their audience want them to say whether or not Jesus existed and beyond. They also want to do it with attitude almost certainly. And they and their audience want to say he almost certainly/certainly did. But this is an amateur shortcut to historical analysis (Apologetics). More important then what was said is who said it. Conclusions are based on evidence and evidence is based on sources.

The starting point is what would be quality evidence for a conclusion. That would be multiple, confirming, contemporary evidence from credible sources. We have none of that here. Extant Paul is evidence but a long way from quality evidence. What evidence is there that Jesus did not exist. Much less. So the relative evidence supports that Jesus did exist but the uncertainty prevents any absolute conclusion. Dr. Carrier expands the related conversation to consider this. Your friends apparently do not. Dr. Carrier is not going to take them seriously.

So you are afraid to tell them this and have sown the seeds for them to discover these unholy Threads in a friendly effort to improve their scholarship?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by maryhelena »

JoeWallack wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:52 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 4:46 pm Ian and Laura are friends, but that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, though we agree on quite a bit. (Ian and I are in pretty solid agreement on source critical issues. And, of course, there are lots of things the two of them disagree on, but their disagreements are not the point of their podcasts and videos). So I'll share my opinions here in case anyone is interested.

I agree on Galatians 4.4. I think when Paul says Jesus was “born of a woman” in all probability he means Jesus existed as a human being on earth as human beings tend to. This does not exclude the possibility that he was born of a woman outside the terrestrial sphere, but such a thesis needs to show evidence for that beyond what is in the text at that point (Ian and Laura's point about “bark” and “novelization”).

I don't agree with them on Gal. 1.19. I think there is a reasonably good argument to be made for the brothers of the Lord being a group of Christian leaders distinct from the apostles, but who are not Jesus' siblings. Also, I don't think the understanding that it means “male siblings of Jesus” is all that solid from either Pauline usage or the history of interpretation in the early church.

I agree partly, but disagree significantly on Mark 7.19 and environs. The point is that Mark adds the interpretive comment “Thus he declared all foods clean,” but Jesus' preceding sayings don't really establish that. I take this to mean Mark did not have complete freedom to make up whatever he wanted. There was some sort of prior tradition. The same would be true of Matthew and Luke – they can add, delete, alter, and in some cases even contradict Mark, but they are still constrained to some extent by what Mark had written before them. But to say that there was a tradition before Mark with which Mark had to deal is not to say that the sayings necessarily goes back to Jesus himself.

Best,

Ken
JW:
"I've got this friends..."

We've been through this before Ken. Their emphasis is on the absolute, the conclusion, and not on the relative, the evidence. Sure, they and their audience want them to say whether or not Jesus existed and beyond. They also want to do it with attitude almost certainly. And they and their audience want to say he almost certainly/certainly did. But this is an amateur shortcut to historical analysis (Apologetics). More important then what was said is who said it. Conclusions are based on evidence and evidence is based on sources.

The starting point is what would be quality evidence for a conclusion. That would be multiple, confirming, contemporary evidence from credible sources. We have none of that here. Extant Paul is evidence but a long way from quality evidence. What evidence is there that Jesus did not exist. Much less. So the relative evidence supports that Jesus did exist but the uncertainty prevents any absolute conclusion. Dr. Carrier expands the related conversation to consider this. Your friends apparently do not. Dr. Carrier is not going to take them seriously.

So you are afraid to tell them this and have sown the seeds for them to discover these unholy Threads in a friendly effort to improve their scholarship?


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
''Dr. Carrier is not going to take them seriously.'' Indeed, Carrier, for all his faults, to my thinking, would walk over these two scholars in the twinkling of an eye.....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:34 pmI would argue that the fact Paul never clearly puts James into the category of apostle supports that theory.
Whom does Paul clearly put into that category, in your estimation, besides himself? Is Romans 16.7 clear about Andronicus and Junia? Is 1 Corinthians 4.9 clear about Apollos? Philippians 2.25 is clear about Epaphroditus, but is an apostle of the church at Philippi ("your") the same as an apostle of God or of Christ? Is 1 Thessalonians 2.7 clear about Timothy and/or Silvanus, going all the way back to 1.1? Galatians 1.19 seems clear about Cephas, but that is the same verse that seems to imply that James, too, belongs to what is apparently a group, to judge from 1.17, of apostles whom could be visited at Jerusalem. Galatians 2.8 is clear about Peter, but I am not sure that verse is original to the text. On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 9.5 Cephas seems to fall outside the group of apostles, just as he seems to fall outside the group of brethren of the Lord. (I am serious about these questions; they are not rhetorical; I have noticed before how difficult it is to determine exactly who is an apostle, according to Paul.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that 4 texts before the Gospels:
  • Book of Revelation where the birth is celestial
  • original layer of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus descends already adult in the lower heavens
  • Jesus "without father and mother" à la Melchizedek in Hebrews
  • in the Hymn to Philippians, Jesus is made directly "slave" and little children can't still work as slaves,
...come against "born by woman, born under the law" being genuine in Paul.

In addition, Marcion didn't have the passage.

So, I don't find Olson's analysis so different from his two friends's apologetics.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Bernard Muller »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:47 am
Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html
Doherty's strongest point is not evidenced by what Paul wrote: 'archontes' (rulers) does not have to mean supernatural forces. Actually, the evidence set these archontes of 1 Cor 2:8 as human rulers, certainly including Roman authorities (such as Pilate).
As fully explained on this webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/68.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Giuseppe »

Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:59 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:47 am
Perhaps Doherty's strongest point is Paul's assertion (1 Cor.2:8) that Jesus was crucified by supernatural forces (the archontes). I take this to mean that they prompted the action of human agents: but I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

(my bold)
https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... liest.html
Doherty's strongest point is not evidenced by what Paul wrote: 'archontes' (rulers) does not have to mean supernatural forces. Actually, the evidence set these archontes of 1 Cor 2:8 as human rulers, certainly including Roman authorities (such as Pilate).
As fully explained on this webpage: http://historical-jesus.info/68.html

Cordially, Bernard
1. note that Wells uses a strong expression, here: I must admit that the text ascribes the deed to the archontes themselves.

2. note that the Romans can't be rulers "of this age". They didn't rule from the time when Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: “Did Jesus Exist?” On the New Testament Review

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
Note that 4 texts before the Gospels:
Book of Revelation where the birth is celestial
original layer of Ascension of Isaiah where Jesus descends already adult in the lower heavens
Jesus "without father and mother" à la Melchizedek in Hebrews
in the Hymn to Philippians, Jesus is made directly "slave" and little children can't still work as slaves,

...come against "born by woman, born under the law" being genuine in Paul.
- Revelation was not completed before the gospels (probable exception: gJohn). Furthermore the birth in question is part of the original Revelation written soon after 70 CE), which was totally Jewish (the Christian additions happened later (up to 96 CE). That's according to my study: http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html
Furthermore, the sign is in heaven (12:1), but the woman/mother is on earth (12:8), so the baby is caught up from earth to God in heaven (12:5).
That cannot be about Jesus.

- The original layer (of the vision of Isaiah) was strictly a Jewish text, which got Christianized progressively in the 2nd century by Christian Docetists: all explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/100.html

-The author did not say Jesus was "without father and mother". You are imagining things here. Furthermore Melchizedek is presented as an earthly human, so he had a human mother and father. Just that the book of Genesis does not mention them, prompting "without father and mother". Also, other parts of Hebrews (already quoted by me in an earlier post) are very affirmative about Jesus being an earthly human.

- 'slave' or 'bondservant'. There is nothing to say here that Jesus was not an earthly human. I do not know why you bring little children in your argument.

Paul also brought many bits of evidence (as already quoted by me in an earlier post) showing Jesus was an earthly human, which certainly do not clash with "born by woman, born under the law".

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply